Help Define How The US Government Promotes Innovation Over The Next Four Years

from the take-part-now dept

Here's a chance to help define how the US government promotes innovation over the next four years. Over at our Step2 discussion platform, Darrell West of the Governance Studies program of The Brookings Institution is seeking to crowdsource ideas, feedback and insights into how the federal government can go about promoting an innovation economy. The results of this effort may go into an eventual report put out by West for new members of the next Administration. Below the Step2 post linked above, we've pre-loaded an initial list of 96 different possible agenda items, as prepared by West, for an innovation agenda, covering a variety of proposals touching on these topics:

Re:

I agree they [patents/copyrights] are broken. I agree they are beyond fixing. But there is another reason we should scrap them. They no longer fulfill the reason for their existence as spelled out in the constitution.

I had an idea about this. Maybe Google could not just downrank them, but really seriously downrank them practically into non-existence. Now if you search for something like the name of a song or movie, the authorized versions would appear at the top of the very first page.

The non-authorized versions would appear at the bottom of the very last page. Just click the "last" page button to get to the end of the list of 158,390,194 zillion search results.

Get OUT of the way

Raw rampant capitalism was one of the conerstones of the founding of the United States. The government has stepped in so many times, that EVERY business is regulated to within inches of death. Except maybe a number of goals that can be counted on one hand, the government should just get out of the way and let "necessity, the mother of invention" take over again. Laws that actually protect consumers are OK, but otherwise, pretty much stay out of the way. Get rid of the milk supports, get rid of the "pay farmers to not grow crops", get rid of the import tariffs to protect non-efficient local industries, get rid of the steel import protections. Reduce the government and let the real competition of capitalism get involved again.

Re: Get OUT of the way

Too much regulation is bad. So is too little.

There is a difference between healthy capitalism and capitalism run amok. (too big to fail, etc)

I'm all for business owners profiting and working in their own self interest, that also happens to be in all of our interest. There comes a point, somewhere, where greed driven self interest results in decisions and actions that are bad, and sometimes extremely bad for the whole of society.

Why not just allow unlimited pollution? Hey, it's more profitable!

Slavery is also very profitable! And it's a renewable resource!

Complete de-regulation of everything works great as long as everyone behaves themselves. The problem is that there are bad actors who must be regulated. People who would destroy us all as long as they could get a bigger bonus that quarter.

You missed the two most important points.

There are two serious problems that lie at the root of most of the threats to the Internet and our modern, Internet-centric culture, and your list of agenda items doesn't address either of them, so I added them.

1. Criminalize the use of DRM technology, just like any other form of hacking, instead of giving it special legal protection. When a remote programmer is able to override your control of your own computer, you have been hacked. In any other context, that's a crime. But with DRM, law and common sense both get turned on their head. Now it's legally protected if a content owner wants to hack you, and it's a crime to assert your rights to control over your own property!

2. Repeal the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA, and make ISPs and websites subject to Common Carrier laws instead. This solves two serious problems at once: takedowns on accuastion alone without due process, and net neutrality.

We need to put the concept of piracy in its proper place and return some common sense to the discussion. Until we get the concept that "piracy is the IP owner's problem, not my problem, and they have zero right to make it my problem unless and until they can prove in a court of law that I am part of the problem" firmly enshrined in law, everything else is just a game of whack-a-mole.

Re: You missed the two most important points.

...and apparently someone's noticed and it's got them scared. Both proposals are already gathering downvotes, despite being the two most important (and most potentially beneficial) agenda items on the entire list.

Re: Get OUT of the way

You don't really want unregulated capitalism. At least not if you want anything like a free market. Unregulated capitalism is predatory, and will inevitably become oligarchy or monopoly and result in the destruction of individual freedom and liberty.

Laws that actually protect consumers are OK

Not just consumers, but also the rights of all other people whose land, water, and air might be poisoned, etc., but I'm glad you see the need for regulation.

Get rid of the milk supports, get rid of the "pay farmers to not grow crops", get rid of the import tariffs to protect non-efficient local industries, get rid of the steel import protections.

Re: Re: Get OUT of the way

Those "regulations" are supported by laws passed by congress.

And "Yes" the idea is to remove the corporate welfare. Take out protection of specific industries and companies and let the competition begin. "Real" anti-trust would be one of the "Ok" consumer protection areas and would/should limit the cases of oligarchy and monopoly.